In 2014, a group of medical professionals wrote an open letter imploring the ban of alcohol sponsorship in sport, stating that it would be outrageous if high-profile teams become brand ambassadors for tobacco and questioning why it was okay for alcohol.

Equally there was a profound backlash to fast food and sugary drinks brands, including McDonald’s and Coca Cola, sponsoring the London 2012 Olympics.

With a recent WHO report predicting that, by 2030, 74 per cent of men and 64 per cent of women in UK will be overweight, it’s easy to see why there is objection to these brands sponsoring an event which celebrates the pinnacle of human endeavour.

But should brands which sell products deemed ‘harmful’ to health be banned from sponsoring sporting events? When you compare it to tobacco sponsorship, the conclusion seems damning.

However once you scratch the surface, the answer is far from simple.

The first important distinction to make is that it is possible to ‘drink responsibly’ and ‘eat as part of a balanced diet’. Conversely ‘smoking responsibly’ is a bit of a stretch.

And if people are going to consume unhealthy products anyway (and not always responsibly) it’s important that brands use their platforms to promote more responsible consumption.

Due to strict regulations, alcohol brands are obliged to promote a healthy attitude towards drinking.

Forbidden from using players aged under 25 in its marketing, Heineken has chosen to focus on rugby legends of old - cementing it as a brand which understands rugby, its fans and its history.

With the British Beer and Pub Association estimating that 25 million pints will be ‘downed’ during the next six weeks, there’s no denying that rugby fans would benefit from positive messaging around drinking.

But if alcohol sponsors such as Heineken are no longer allowed to promote themselves to this audience, it means the message about responsible drinking would be lessened too.